The Hidden Truth About the Qatif Case: Response to “Rape Victim Gets Lashes”

salafimanhaj.com

1/19

The Hidden Truth About the Qatif Case:

Response to “Rape Victim Gets Lashes”

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Recently, the fervently anti-Islamic and secularist newspaper,
Arab News,

published an article claiming that a rape victim was punished with
lashes in Saudi

Arabia. The news was immediately picked up by the Western media
outlets,

including BBC News, and soon the issue became an international
affair. The

enemies of Islam used this news report as a means to disparage the
Muslims by

claiming that Islamic law was unjust and barbaric. The heretics
(i.e. the

Rawaafidh shia) used the incident as a means to fan the flames of
sectarianism,

lashing out at the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, referring to them as
“Wahabis”. And

sadly, many Muslims themselves fell into the trap and believed the
lies levied

against the Saudi judges (who are Ulema).

Allah Almighty warns the Muslims:

“O you who believe, if a wicked evildoer comes to you with a news
report, look

carefully into it to verify the truth, lest you harm a people in
ignorance and

afterwards feel remorseful for what you have done.” (Quran, 49:6)

In the time of the Messenger of Allah, the infidels used to spread
lies and slander

about the Messenger, and they would propagate false news reports
in order to

create dissension and discord amongst the ranks of the believers.
Allah Almighty

revealed the above verse so that the Muslims would be cautious of
such reports

and so that they would prevent the seeds of suspicion from
entering into their

hearts. Today, the enemies of Islam continue their crusade against
Islam, with

the Western media at the forefront of the ideological assault on
Islam. The

Western media has consistently proven itself to be deceitful,
biased, and outright

wicked; as such, whenever we Muslims hear anything from them, then
we should

take it with a grain of salt.

The truth is that the media has slandered the good character of
the Islamic

judges in Saudi Arabia. The entire case has been hyped up and
taken

dramatically out of context by the West and the lovers of the West
(i.e. the

secularists within our own ranks). In this article, we shall–with
the Help of Allah

Almighty–reveal the hidden facts about the case and thereby
exonerate Islam

from the charges levied against it by the forces of Taghoot /
Devils.

The Penalty for Rape in Islam

No other religion besides Islam has ever placed such a large
emphasis on the

protection of women. It is known that the early Muslims even
raised an army to

bring to justice those who raped a woman; such was the attitude of
the Muslims

towards the heinous crime of rape. In one of the Prophetic
traditions, we read:

salafimanhaj.com

2/19

…A woman, in the life of the Messenger of Allah, [left her home]
intending to go

for Prayer [in the mosque] when a man seized her and had sexual
intercourse

with her, while she let out a scream [for help]. The man fled, and
she told a man

what had occurred. A group from amongst the Muhaajireen (i.e. the
first group of

Muslims) were told of this and they chased the man down eventually
capturing

who they thought it was, and took the man to her. She said that it
was the man

who did it to her. They took the man to the Messenger of Allah,
and asked “who

is the man who did this to her”? The man confessed saying, “I am
the one who

did this to her, O Messenger of Allah!” The Prophet Muhammad said
to the

woman, “You can leave, for Allah has forgiven you (i.e. absolved
you of all sin)!”

The Prophet said to the man, “Your words are sound.” So he said
regarding the

man who had raped her, “Stone him.”

[Hadith reported by Abu Dawood in his Sunan and Imam at-Tirmidhi
in his

Sunan, in the chapter “What is said regarding the woman that has
been coerced

into committing fornication”]

So the one who says that Islam lets rapists go free is a liar,
because the Prophet

himself sentenced the rapist to stoning. Likewise, the one who
claims that rape

victims get punished in Islam is also a liar, because the Prophet
exonerated

victims of all blame, and this 1,400 years ago when it used to be
common to

blame the woman for such things!

In Islamic Law, the minimum punishment for rape is either stoning
(if the

perpetrator is married) or one hundred lashes and banishment for
one year (if the

perpetrator is not married). On top of this, the rapist is to pay
a penalty fee in the

form of the Mahr. And if the rape involved violence and the threat
of weapons,

then the rapists can be exiled from the land, have one hand along
with one foot

cut off, crucified, or killed.

The Saudi based fatwa site, Islam-qa, explains the Islamic Law:

Question: What is the ruling on the crime of rape in Islam?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

The Arabic word ightisaab refers to taking something wrongfully by force. It is

now used exclusively to refer to transgression against the honour
of women by

force (rape).

This is an abhorrent crime that is forbidden in all religions and
in the minds of all

wise people and those who are possessed of sound human nature. All
earthly

systems and laws regard this action as abhorrent and impose the
strictest

penalties on it, except a few states which waive the punishment if
the rapist

marries his victim! This is indicative of a distorted mind let
alone a lack of

religious commitment on the part of those who challenge Allaah in
making laws.

We do not know of any love or compassion that could exist between
the

aggressor and his victim, especially since the pain of rape cannot
be erased with

the passage of time – as it is said. Hence many victims of rape
have attempted to

commit suicide and many of them have succeeded. The failure of
these marriages

is proven and they are accompanied by nothing but humiliation and
suffering for

the woman.

Islam has a clear stance which states that this repugnant action
is haraam

(forbidden) and imposes a deterrent punishment on the one who
commits it…The

punishment for rape in Islam is same as the punishment for zina, which is stoning

salafimanhaj.com

3/19

if the perpetrator is married, and one hundred lashes and banishment
for one

year if he is not married.

Some scholars also say that he is required to pay a mahr to the woman.

…The rapist is subject to the hadd punishment (stoning or lashes) for zina, even if

the rape was not carried out at knife-point or gun-point. If the
use of a weapon

was threatened, then he is a muhaarib, and is to be subjected to the hadd

punishment described in the verse in which Allaah says
(interpretation of the

meaning):

“The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His
Messenger and

do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or
crucified or their hands

and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from
the land. That is

their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the
Hereafter” [al-

Maaidah 5:33]

So the judge has the choice of the four punishments mentioned in
this verse, and

may choose whichever he thinks is most suitable to attain the
objective, which is

to spread peace and security in society, and ward off evildoers
and aggressors.

And Allaah knows best.

www.islamqa.com

It should be noted that this website is maintained by the same
group (i.e. the

Saudi Ulema) who are judges in Saudi Arabia. This refutes those
who claim that

the Saudi judges let rapists go; rather, the penalties for rape in
Saudi Arabia (and

under the Islamic Law) are far stricter than what happens in the
West. Whereas

rapists are routinely executed under Islamic Law, we find
that–according to the

U.S. Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics)–convicted
rapists in

America serve only an average of about ten years behind bars.
(source) In

England, the matter is even worse, with rapists serving an average
sentence of

less than four years. (source) Sandy Brindley, national
coordinator of Rape Crisis

Scotland, said: “People will be shocked to find out the average
sentence for a

rapist is five and a half years. They could be out after only
three years–and that

is concerning.” (source)

As for the victim, then Islam says that she is not to be blamed in
any way at all.

Imam Malik, one of the four greatest jurists of Islam, said:

“The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no
punishment for

the woman who has been raped, whatever the case.” (Al-Muwatta’,
2/734)

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, one of the classical Islamic scholars, said:

“There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced
her and

overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and shouting
for help

(and the like).” (Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146)

The Qatif Case

Now that we have reviewed the Islamic Law on such a matter, let us
examine the

case which has created such an outcry. The truth is that the media
has

salafimanhaj.com

4/19

suppressed most of the facts, twisting the story in such a way
with the simple

intent of maligning the good image of Islam.

It should be noted that the Qatif girl was having an affair on her
husband, and

this is what she was punished for.

BBC News says

“The woman was initially to be punished for violating strict
gender segregation

laws in Saudi Arabia, for riding in the car of a man who was not
related to her

when they were both attacked.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7112999.stm”

The liars at BBC have endeavored to make it seem as if the woman
was simply

punished for being in a car of a man; what a boldfaced lie! By
this lie, the

Western media has made it appear as if the Muslims would punish
someone for

such a seemingly menial crime. And yet, they have hidden the
greatest fact of all,

which is that the woman was having an illicit affair on her
husband, and at the

time of the alleged rape, she was in the car of the man with whom
she was

having an affair with! The Qatif adulteress confessed to having an
affair on her

husband, and this is all in her sworn testimony.

Anonymous says

“What do you mean by adultery? Are you accusing the woman of
having sex?

”

In this article, when we use the word “affair” and “adultery” then
we are not

referring to the actual sex act (i.e. penetration), but we use
these words in the

more general sense. The words such as “Zinnah”, “adulterous”, and
“affair” are

commonly used to refer to any relationship that threatens the
marital oaths.

Therefore, we consider the woman to be adulterous who sends nude
photos of

herself to men that are not her husband, has flirtatious chats
with them on the

internet, secretly meets up with them behind her husband’s back,
etc. These

crimes may not deserve the Hadd punishment, but they are deserving
of the

Ta’zeer punishment. To clarify, we cite the following fatwa:

Question: Is zinaa intercourse only?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Zinaa, in Arabic, means immorality, and is used with two meanings
in shar’: a

general meaning and a specific meaning.

The general meaning includes that which carries the punishment
(hadd) and that

which does not carry it. Islam does not give the name of zinaa
only to that which

carries the punishment, which is just one of many types of zinaa.
Ibn ‘Abbaas

(may Allaah be pleased with them both) said: “I have never heard
any better

definition of ‘small faults’ [al-Najm 53:32] than that which Abu
Hurayrah (may

Allaah be pleased with him) narrated from the Prophet (peace and
blessings of

Allaah be upon him): ‘Allaah has decreed for every son of Adam his
share of

zinaa, and there is no way to escape from it. The zinaa of the eye
is a glance, the

zinaa of the tongue is speaking, and the zinaa of the mind is
wishing and hoping;

then the private part either acts upon this or it does not.’”
(Reported by al-

Bukhaari, 11/26; Muslim, 4/2046).

salafimanhaj.com

5/19

Al-Bukhaari included this hadeeth in a chapter entitled Baab zinaa
al-jawaarih

doon al-farj (Chapter on the zinaa of faculties other than the
private part).

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Zinaa is
not always

associated with the private part itself, but may involve other
faculties such as the

eyes and so on.” Ibn Battaal (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
“Looking and

speaking are called zinaa because they lead to real zinaa. This is
why he said that

the private part either acts upon this or it does not”

www.islam-qa.com

Anonymous says

“Are you sure that she was having an illegal sexual affair with
another man? This

is a very serious charge and what if you are wrong? Do you want to
be held

responsible for this on the Day of Judgment? Do you not remember
the incident

of al-Ifk in which certain Muslims were spreading lies that a
woman was an

adulteress?

”

We ourselves do not make any judgment on the woman, but rather it
is up to the

courts to decide the innocence or guilt of a person. The Qatif
woman was tried in

a court of law and found guilty of Zinnah (in the general sense of
the word). She

is a convicted Zaani (adulterer). Of course, with any crime, whether it is Zinnah

or murder or theft, it is possible that a person is convicted
mistakenly. However,

this is not relevant to the discussion at hand; the question is:
should a convicted

adulterer be punished according to the Islamic Law? The bottom
line point is that

the Qatif woman was convicted
of Zinnah and then she was sentenced based on

that. This is a completely different scenario than the incident of
al-Ifk; the

Prophet’s wife (may Allah be pleased with her) was never found
guilty of Zinnah

in a court of law. Rather, she was found innocent of all charges.
If there are

merely rumors about a woman committing Zinnah, then of course it
is wrong to

spread such tales. But if a woman is found guilty in a court of
law, then this is a

different situation altogether. This is the same with all crimes;
it is wrong to

accuse anyone of anything if he has not been found guilty in a
court of law.

Because she was convicted in a court of law, there is a basis for
saying that the

Qatif woman was committing Zinnah in the general sense, if not the
specific one.

The Western media has tried to galvanize its readers by claiming
that a woman is

to be whipped in Saudi Arabia simply for sitting in a car with a
man. This is

deliberate obfuscation of the truth. It is like saying that a man
divorced his wife

just because she chatted on the internet. This sounds
astonishingly fickle of the

man to do this, but if one were to elaborate and say that his wife
was chatting

with a man with whom she was carrying out
an illegal affair with, then nobody

would be surprised that her husband divorced her for this.
Likewise, when the

media declares that a woman was punished simply for being in the
car of a man,

then this makes the Saudis seem barbaric. But when we elaborate
and say that

the Saudis punished a woman for being in a parked car with a man she was

having an illicit affair with,
then suddenly this does not seem so outrageous any

more.

We Muslims are not like the Westerners who are–with a few
exceptions–immoral

fornicators and adulterers. Even though their own religious book
condemns such

things, they themselves are a society which revels in these things.
Famous

Western researchers, such as Alfred Kinsey and Glass & Wright,
found that

adultery occurs in 50-80% of all American marriages! And this
propensity of

Westerners to betray their spouses is one of the causes for their
skyrocketing

salafimanhaj.com

6/19

divorce rates and their broken home syndrome. Al-Hamdu Lillah, our
Muslim

children are obedient to their parents, and they are not
rebellious like the

Western children; and who can blame their children for acting that
way when

their parents are immoral fornicators and adulterers? We can open
up their own

Bible to point to verses in which God Almighty threatens damnation
upon such

nations as the people of Sodom; and this will be the end of the
Western nations

because they have slipped into a state of moral decadence and
depravity.

Christian says

“Whipping and stoning, the punishments of you Muslims, is
barbaric!

”

The Westerners claim that Islam is barbaric for allowing such
penalties as stoning

and whipping, and yet we find the exact same punishment in their
own Bible! We

read:

“If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the
adulterer and the

adulteress shall be put to death.” (Bible; Lev.20:10, Ezk.16:40,
Jn.8:3)

And:

“If a damsel who is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and
(another) man

finds her in the city and lies with her, then ye shall bring them
both out unto the

gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones, that they
die — the

damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man,
because he hath

humbled his neighbor’s wife; so thou shalt put away evil from
among you.”

(Bible; Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

Is it not strange that the Christians do not take issue with their
own Bible, but

then create an outcry when we Muslims enforce similar punishments
on convicted

fornicators and adulterers? In the Qatif case, a woman was
betrothed unto a

husband, and she was having an affair on him with another man. The
Bible, a

book that the Christians claim came from God and something that we
Muslims

also hold to be true,1 commands death on such people. Therefore, we find that

the Westerners have no right to accuse Islam of anything, because
it is found in

their own books.

The Woman Confessed to Having an Affair

The woman herself confessed to having an affair with that man who
was in the

car. Even BBC News was forced to report this fact:

Saudi justice officials say a woman who was sentenced to prison
and flogging

after she was gang-raped has now confessed to an extramarital
affair…

It (the Saudi justice ministry) insisted the ruling was legal and
that the woman

had “confessed to doing what God has forbidden”.

…“The Saudi justice minister expressed his regret about the media
reports over

the role of the woman in this case which put out false information
and wrongly

defend her,” the statement said.

1 Editor’s (cti) Note: From the Bible, we hold to be true, only that which is in
conformity

with the authentic texts of Islam

salafimanhaj.com

7/19

“The charged girl is a married woman who confessed to having an affair
with the

man she was caught with.”

BBC News

What happened on that night of the alleged rape was that the woman
went out in

the cover of the night to to the corniche to meet her lover. A
group of men saw

her get into the parked car at that spot. It was this group of men
that followed

her to the car, and according to the men, they caught her naked
and being

intimate with her lover.

The woman did not admit to having sex with her lover, but she did
admit to be

carrying out an affair which went on for many long months. The two
lovers

admitted to the authorities that they were having an illicit
relationship with each

other, and this is in their signed and attested confessions. On
top of this, the

Saudi authorities had proof of the affair in the form of telephone
calls, picture

exchanges, and other such supporting evidences.

With this evidence against the woman, it was impossible not to
punish her under

the Islamic Law; and this is not only Islamic Law, but rather it
is God’s Law, as

found in both the Quran (the Final Testament) as well as the
previous scriptures

such as the Bible.

It is dishonest to state that she was punished simply for being in
the car of a

man; rather she was punished for being in the car of a man with
whom she was

having an affair with. There are degrees of “intermingling of the
sexes”, and the

Islamic Law would differ on the punishment depending on the
situation. It is

incorrect to claim that women are whipped in Saudi Arabia simply
for being in a

car with stranger men; the author himself has been to Saudi Arabia
and knows

that this is not the case, and if it were, then there would be
similar cases every

day! Indeed, if a couple is found dating in Saudi Arabia, then
they are given

warnings and told to go away by the religious police, or their
parents are notified

and warned. As such, it is a blatant lie and manipulation to claim
that the Qatif

woman was lashed for simply being in the car with another man.
Rather, she was

charged with Zinnah, and we all know what happens in parked cars.

We read:

New Ministry Statement on Qatif Case

JEDDAH, 25 November 2007 — The [Saudi] Ministry of Justice issued
a statement

yesterday providing more details regarding the charges against a
19-year-old

woman who was gang-raped by seven men in Qatif.

The statement, which the ministry says is a response to media
scrutiny of the

ruling, said that the rape victim confessed to having an illegal
affair with the man

who was caught with her.

“She went out with him without a mahram, a legal guardian, and
exchanged

forbidden affairs through the illegal khalwa,” the statement said.
“They both

confessed to doing what God forbids.”

The ministry said: “The first verdict of 90 lashes was made
according to Shariah.

The woman and her husband were convinced and agreed to it on
10/10/1427.”

salafimanhaj.com

8/19

…The ministry also claimed that the woman violated the sanctity of
marriage.

“She knows that ‘khalwa’ with an unrelated man is forbidden by
Shariah and by

doing this she has broken the sacred matrimonial contract,” the
statement said.

“The woman mentioned in her signed confession that she called from
her

husband’s house using her cell phone asking for a forbidden
‘khalwa’ in front of a

shopping center,” the statement said.

…The ministry claimed the woman was “in a state of indecency,
having thrown off

her clothes” and the two were abducted in a “dark side of the
(Qatif) corniche” by

the attackers after they saw the couple in this alleged state of
indecency.

Arab News

How deceitful is the Western media: they used flashy headlines
such as “rape

victim gets lashes” instead of “woman convicted of adultery gets
lashes”!

Male is Lashed

The enemies of Islam seek to portray our beautiful religion as
sexist, claiming

that we discriminate against women. To back this claim, they claim
that it is

unfair how the Qatif woman received ninety lashes whereas the
group of men

who allegedly raped her received jail-time only. This argument is
completely

refuted by the fact (and the hidden truth) that the woman’s lover
received the

same punishment:

The woman’s companion was sentenced to 90 lashes.

BBC News

How it is that the liars are exposed for their lies against Islam!
How can one claim

sexism in this case when the man and woman were both charged with
the exact

same sentence? And it is well-known that–under the Islamic Law–the
punishment

for rape is the same for men and women, so how then can anyone
claim sexism?

The Men Accused of Rape

Now that we have clarified the punishment of the woman, let us
move onto the

issue of the men accused of rape, who were sentenced with a few
months to five

years in prison. The enemies of Islam and the hypocrites ask: “Why
is it that the

rapists were given such lenient sentences?” Actually, some of the
men were

sentenced up to ten years (not five) and this is the same as the
average sentence

given to rapists in America! And it is double the average sentence
of rapists in

places like England, Scotland, etc. In any case, the reason that
the men were not

executed under Islamic Law was that there was simply a lack of
evidence to

charge them with the crime of rape.

The group of men deny raping her. According to them, they caught
the Qatif

woman in the car with her clothes off. They caught the two lovers
in the act, and

she was–by her own admission–fearful that the men would inform her
husband of

her betrayal. This is where the story differs between the woman
and the group of

men. The woman claims that the men proceeded to gang-rape her. On
the other

hand, the men claim that she offered herself to them, in exchange
for their

salafimanhaj.com

9/19

promise to keep quiet on her affair. And the men claim that they
refused her

offer.

What really hurt the woman’s case is that she did not go to the
police after the

alleged rape. In fact, she did not report the case at all, and she
remained silent

about it for three months. Eventually what happened was that three
months later,

her husband was sent an anonymous email declaring that his wife
had cheated on

him on that day, having sex with many men at the corniche. The husband
then

confronted his wife about the matter, and she confessed to it but
told him that

she was raped by those men and that it was not consensual. This is
when the

husband notified the authorities and the case against the group of
men was filed.

We read:

The statement [by the Saudi Ministry] claimed that the two victims
of the gang

rape hid the incident for three months until an e-mail was sent to
the woman’s

betrothed “informing him what happened to his wife, and her
betrayal.”

Arab News

This fact considerably weakened the woman’s case: any woman would
claim

coercion when her indiscretions were caught by her husband! And
this was three

months after the event. Even in America, it is important for a
rape victim to

report the crime within twenty-fours, so that important medical
tests can be done

to prove that it was a case of rape and not consensual sex. This
medical test

would document defensive wounds on the hands and nails, wounding
of the

genitalia, sperm stains, DNA evidence, and the like. Without this
evidence, it is

impossible–even in the United States–to prove rape. In fact, when
the Qatif

woman’s husband finally reported the crime three months after the
event, the

Saudi authorities asked her to have some medical tests done in
order to gather

evidence to support her case, but she herself refused because she
knew that so

much time had passed that any evidence was long gone.

It is very difficult to prove rape without any medical evidence of
force, or any

witnesses to the scene of the crime. It becomes a matter of her
word against his.

What could prevent an angry ex from accusing her former boyfriend
of raping her

many months ago? The group of men accused of rape deny raping the
Qatif

woman. They claim that she offered herself to them in exchange for
promises of

silence; however, none of the men admitted to accepting her offer.
A few of the

men admitted to witnessing the rape, but none of them admitted to
the actual

rape. It became a circular accusation, whereby each man claimed
innocence and

put the blame on the other men. As such, it became impossible to
tell which of

the men were guilty and which were innocent.

The problem of convicting rapists is not limited to the Muslim
world, but rather it

is a worldwide dilemma, and this is due to the very nature of
rape. It is very

difficult to prove coercion. This is a problem experienced by
American women as

well:

Rape

For women, rape might appear to be an open and shut case; if we do
not consent

to sex, a rape has been committed. Unfortunately, it is not this
simple in the

courts. Rape is often very difficult to prove. The lack of consent
is one element of

proving a rape, but in many states, this is not enough to prove
that a rape has

occurred.

salafimanhaj.com

10/19

The common law definition of rape is “sexual intercourse achieved
by force or

threat of force without consent of the victim”. By requiring force
or the threat of

force, the legal system perpetuates the myth that a rapist is a
strange man who

jumps from behind the bushes at night. In addition, when there is
a force or

threat of force requirement, non-physical or non-imminent threats
are not

enough to prove a rape. As if this does not make proving rape
difficult enough,

many states also require the proof of “reasonable resistance” on
the part of the

rape victim.

With the current rules in many jurisdictions, it is difficult for
women in an abusive

relationship to prove rape because 1) the abuse might be emotional
so there

might not be physical force or 2) the fear and submission to sex
might be due to

past violence and not a contemporaneous threat. For example, in
State v. Alston,

a woman broke off an abusive relationship with her boyfriend. The
woman saw

her abusive ex-boyfriend some time much later and they had sex.
Even though

the ex-boyfriend did not physically force the woman to have sex,
there was

implicit threat of force due to past incidents. A lower court
convicted the man but

he appealed and a higher court reversed the conviction due to a
lack of physical

force.

Another complexity with the force or threat of physical force
requirement is that

courts distinguish between offers and threats. The difference
might seem clear,

an offer makes you better off and a threat makes you worse off.
However,

sometimes the difference is murky and two cases, demonstrate this.
In

Thompson, a higher court reversed the conviction of a high school
principal who

told a female senior that she would not graduate unless she
“slept” with him. The

senior had sex with the principal in order to graduate. According to
the higher

court, the principal did not threaten the young woman, he offered
her something,

and that was not sufficient to constitute a rape.

Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Mlinarich, a higher court reversed
the conviction of

a man who had custody of a teenage girl who had previously been in
a juvenile

detention facility. The man told the girl that he would return her
to the facility if

she did not have sex with him. She complied. Even though the man
was initially

convicted, he appealed and the higher court said that he made the
child an offer

and did not threaten her. Luckily some states have abolished the
threat and

reasonable resistance requirements, but they are in the minority.

WomenMatter.org

Not a single one of the men admitted to having sex with the Qatif
woman, let

alone admitting to raping her. As such, it turned into her word
against theirs.

Without any medical evidence or witnesses to back up her claim,
how could the

judges sentence a group of men to death? The difficulty in
securing rape

convictions is a problem not only in Muslim countries but also
Western ones. BBC

News said in another one of its articles that only 5.6% of alleged
rapists were

ever convicted by the law:

Rape convictions hit record low

The percentage of reported rapes to lead to convictions in England
and Wales has

fallen to an all-time low, according to a Home Office study.

The number of rapes reported is rising - but only 5.6% of 11,766
reports in 2002

led to a rapist being convicted.

salafimanhaj.com

11/19

BBC News

The Indiana Daily says:

Campus rape reports outweigh arrests 43 to 1

Authorities say use of force is difficult to prove

…Rapes often go unpunished because it’s difficult for authorities
to prove an

offender used force.

…Once women do come forward and report, the next issue police face
is having

enough proof to take the case to court. The main reason so few men are

arrested lies with the difficulty of proving force in a courtroom, Slone said.

…Collecting evidence remains another problem in attempting to
prosecute. Police

often don’t find out about the crime until much later, Slone said,
losing the timely

opportunity to collect physical evidence, often bodily fluids. After about 72

hours, that evidence deteriorates, she said, making it nearly
impossible

to prove.

Slone emphasized that women can have the evidence taken at the
hospital, which

is referred to as a rape kit, without actually reporting the crime
to the police. By

putting that evidence in what she refers to as the “evidence
refrigerator,” victims

can take their time to decide if they want to press charges. Without physical

evidence, Slone said, the case becomes a “he said, she said”
issue.

“Many cases that we see, the women do not want to go so far as to
go to court

with it,” Slone said. “To point the finger and say ‘You did this
thing to me.’ It’s

really difficult. Particularly if they know the guy may serve
prison time. … Are

they going to bring this guy to prison for X amount of years based
on her word?”

Indiana Daily Student News

The American police officer, Sgt. Leslie Slone, says that after 72
hours the

evidence for rape disappears and it becomes virtually impossible
to prove rape

after that. And yet, in the Qatif case, over three months had
passed, so are we

surprised then when the Saudi courts could not convict the men on
charges of

rape?

The Qatif woman was caught telling many lies both to the court and
to the media;

she betrayed her husband and lied to him, etc. So how could the
single testimony

of an immoral liar and self-confessed adulteress be enough to send
nine men to

death? Truly it would be a strange country that would send nine
men to death

without any proof except the single testimony of one woman who has
proven

herself to be unreliable.

Why Was the Woman’s Punishment Doubled?

In the United States, the media becomes the judge, jury, and
executioner. It is

well-known in the legal community that high profile cases are won
before they

even get to the courts; whatever version the media wishes to
portray will become

the dominant story. This is called “spin” in legal parlance. Under
Islamic Law,

however, the manipulation of cases is not allowed. In Saudi
Arabia, it is not

salafimanhaj.com

12/19

permitted to use the media to manipulate the justice system. If
the judges

allowed the Qatif woman to do that, then this would become the
norm in Saudi

Arabia, like it is in America.

The Qatif woman fed a story to the media, covering up important
facts such as

her affair, and she did all of this in an attempt to put pressure
on the courts

through the media. Not only this, but she contacted Western media
outlets which

in turn fired up anti-Islamic leaders who further put pressure on
the King of Saudi

Arabia to overturn the decision. This Qatif woman betrayed the
Muslim Ummah;

she made a mockery of Islamic Law, helping to portray it as unjust
and barbaric.

And for this, her sentence was doubled, and rightfully so. Not
only did she

commit a crime, but she betrayed her Ummah and made a mockery of
Islam,

selling her deceitful story to the major media outlets.

However, it should be noted that it was not only her punishment which was

doubled, but also the punishment of the men. The punishment of the
men was

raised in order to remove doubts that bias was being shown against
the woman,

and also because of the dangerous nature of the crime.

Why Was Her Lawyer to be Disbarred?

Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, the woman’s lawyer, is being portrayed as
some sort of

human rights hero. In fact, he is a traitor to Islam, and the West
loves to raise in

rank those who betray Islam. Just recently, Salman Rushdie was
knighted by the

Queen of England, simply because he was a traitor to the Muslims.
This is a part

of the enmity that still resides in the hearts of the descendants
of the Crusaders.

Abdul-Rahman used to be a pious Muslim but then he abandoned that
course in

order to become a secularist, and that is why he will become the
sweetheart of

the West.

In any case, Abdul-Rahman violated the law and ethics by seeking
to manipulate

the media in order to put pressure on the justice system. And this
is why he

should be disbarred. So we condemn him (verbally) based on his
religious

treachery and we ask him to be disbarred (legally) based on his
unethical

manipulations of the justice system.

Anonymous says

“ If the woman was found guilty of adultery, then why was she not
sentenced to

death as per Islamic Law? Where in the Shar’iah / Islamic law is
there a punishment of ninety

lashes? Either she is to be stoned to death or she is not to be
punished, but

lashing does not make any sense and has no basis in Islamic Law.

”

The one who makes such an argument is in fact not capable of
expounding

Islamic Law, since he does not even know the very basics of
Shari’ah. Such a

person is reeking of ignorance and has made a complete buffoon of
himself! The

punishment of death by stoning is one of the Hadd punishments, and
it is

awarded to only those who complete the sexual act (i.e.
penetration). However,

for anything less than that, the judges can levy Ta’zeer
punishment on the

culprit. The Qatif woman admitted to having an illicit
relationship with her lover

and cheating on her husband, but she did not admit to engaging in
the sexual act

(i.e. penetration). As such, she cannot be awarded the Hadd
punishment since

there was no proof of penetration, but because she admitted to
lesser than that

(i.e. an illicit affair), she should be punished for that.
Obviously, the punishment

for lesser than that would be a lesser punishment, and this is why
she was given

lashes instead of death. Under Saudi law, whatever falls short of
the sexual act

salafimanhaj.com

13/19

(such as kissing, necking, fondling, foreplay, etc) is still a
punishable offense as

stipulated in their penal code, and this has basis in Islamic Law.

Had the Qatif woman admitted to engaging in the sexual act, then
she would

have been given the Hadd punishment; but because she did not, she
was

punished for what she did admit to (i.e. Ta’zeer). It is the Rawaafidh who have

voiced their discontent the most, and we have heard many of them
complain that

this woman should not have been punished since she did not admit
to the actual

sex act; yet it should be known that these Rawaafidh are being
dishonest,

because even in their religion do they believe in Ta’zeer! In
Iran, youngsters are

routinely punished for ‘intermingling’ with the opposite sex, by
which we mean

kissing, necking, fondling, foreplay, etc. Maybe these Rawaafidh
should go to the

streets of Tehran and do these things to see how the Iranian
police and justice

system react!

Anonymous says

“ You say that there is no evidence that the men committed rape,
but we have

the confessions of the men themselves!

”

None of the men admitted to engaging in the rape themselves.
However, during

the interrogation, some of the men admitted to having been
witnesses to the

rape. In other words, all of the men denied that they themselves
were a part of

the rape, but some of them pointed the finger at others. During
the trial,

however, these men claimed that they were coerced by the police into
“naming

names”; it is known that forced confessions have no merit. Under
Islamic Law,

when a man retracts his confession, then this is enough Shubha
(doubt) to

weaken its validity in court.

Because the woman failed to report the crime except after three
months when

her husband found out about her betrayal–and because she refused
to take any

medical tests–there was no evidence against the men. All that the
prosecutor had

against them was the accusation of the woman and their confessions
against each

other. And yet, both the accusation and the confessions had
serious problems.

The accusation by the woman was tainted by the fact that the men
countered her

accusation by claiming that she was only trying to cover up her
betrayal of her

husband; according to them, she was willing to have sex with all
of them, and

she wanted to cover this up from her husband, lest he think of her
as

promiscuous and loose. She only made these claims of rape after her husband

was notified about her betrayal, and before that, she did not
utter a single word

to the authorities. The men argued that any woman would claim rape
if her

husband found out about her betrayal.

Unfortunately, the woman weakened her case substantially by
failing to notify the

authorities except after her betrayal was exposed by her husband.
She was

engaged in dubious activities, and such a person’s testimony could
not possibly

be used to send a group of men to their death. It is known that
she lied to her

husband when she left her house on that day, and before that as
well when she

used to call her lover, and that she lied to her husband many
times after the

incident for three months, and she was caught in many lies and
inconsistencies

during the court proceedings, and she even lied to the media; as
such, the reality

is that a liar’s testimony in court is seriously called into
question.

The Western media has tried to single out Saudi Arabia, but the
reality is that

cases like this are tried all the time in America. Oftentimes the
only witnesses in

drug cases are other criminals; when these criminals testify
against the drug

salafimanhaj.com

14/19

dealers, then they serve as very weak witnesses, because the jury
is not inclined

to believe a criminal’s testimony. If a prostitute witnessed a
rape or was herself

raped, then she would serve as a very weak witness due to her
dubious

character, and this is a fact in many trials in the United States!
It may be that

adulterers are not seen as anything evil in the West, yet to the
upright Muslims, a

fornicator and adulteress is a very weak witness by virtue of her
dubious

character. It is not proper that fourteen families lose their sons
based on the

singular testimony of an adulterous, immoral, dubious, and lying
woman.

As for the confessions of the men, then these too were
problematic, because

none of the men admitted to anything themselves. Instead they
pointed the

fingers at others, and they claimed that these confessions were
forced by the

police; the men had been led to believe that if they gave up their
own friends

then their own punishment could be warded off or at least
lessened. So we see

that the accusation by the woman and the confessions by the men
could not be

called impartial, since each benefited from them in some way.
Furthermore, the

accusation by the accuser cannot stand as proof in court, which
goes without

saying; and under Islamic Law, retracted and/or forced confessions
cannot be

used.

The truth is that the woman could not bring forth any proof
because she

destroyed all such proof by failing to report the crime on time.
And she failed to

do this because of her own indecencies. It may sound morbid to
say, but it is

simply the truth. It is similar to the man who robs a bank and is
then assaulted

by another robber; he cannot report the assault to the police
because it will

reveal his crime of robbery. Likewise, the Qatif woman could not
go to the police

about her rape because at that very moment she had been engaging
in an illicit

affair with a man that was not her husband. It is sad, but it is a
reality; and it is

one of the very reasons that we should not violate the law or live
outside of it,

because then we may forfeit many of our rights within that law.
That woman had

the right to be protected under the law, but she herself willingly
forfeited that

right in order to cover up her crime.

Anonymous says

“ The woman did not admit to having an affair! She said she was
not involved

with that man, but rather she was involved with that man prior to
marriage and

he had a compromising photo of her. He had threatened to show that
nude photo

to her current husband unless she agreed to meet him at that spot
of the

corniche. She had agreed to the meeting only as a means to
retrieve the photo.

”

The Qatif woman has lied; the Saudi ministry of justice has
clearly stated that she

admitted to having an illicit affair:

“The woman in the case is married and has confessed to
establishing a

relationship in violation of [Islamic] sharia law,” the Saudi
justice ministry said in

a statement.

Al-Jazeera News

And:

On Saturday the Saudi justice ministry said the rape victim was a
married woman

who allegedly confessed to cheating on her husband.

salafimanhaj.com

15/19

It said she and her lover had met in his car for a tryst “in a
dark place where they

stayed for a while”.

Al-Jazeera News

It is amazing that the hypocrites would believe an adulterous
woman above that

of an entire ministry, but this is the state of their extreme bias
whereby they

would believe in anything so long as it helps them malign the
so-called

“Wahabis.” The woman’s claims that she went only to retrieve a
photo contradict

the reality, because she admitted in the court that she met her
lover twice in the

same month, once during the first days of Shawwal and another time
on that

fateful Thursday. Therefore, this does not seem like some sort of
emergency

meeting for her to take back photos, but rather it seems like an
ongoing affair.

Furthermore, this has been confirmed by incoming and outgoing
phone calls, as

well as picture exchanges that had taken place between the woman
and her

lover. The Qatif woman had sent sexually explicit photos of
herself to her lover.

We know of only one reason why people do this, i.e. to entice
lovers and

invigorate their carnal desires!

The woman claimed she was raped “after she had gone to retrieve a
photograph

of herself from a high school friend after just getting married.”
(Al-Jazeera News)

So why had she sent a compromising photo of herself to that man in
the first

place? Is this fact not enough to prove that she was involved in
an illicit affair

with a man she was not married to? Sending nude photos to others
is a crime

under Islamic Law; does anybody disagree with us on this? If the
stubborn

hypocrites would contest this fact with us, then do they think it
is permissible for

a woman to pose for nude pictures and distribute them? This is
called

pornography and surely this is haram (forbidden) under Islamic
Law! The fact

that this woman sent a compromising photo of herself to a man who
is not her

husband is enough to charge her with indecent acts, which
justifies her

punishment of lashing.

Anonymous says

“ Perhaps she did not give the photo of herself to that man
willingly, and she was

extorted into it.

”

How in the world would she get into such a situation? On what
basis did the man

somehow force her to send nude photos of herself? If the woman
replies that he

was using her illicit premarital affair with him as a means to get
a photo from her,

then once again she has admitted to guilt under the Shari’ah and
she would be

punished for a relationship outside of marriage!

What if the woman had been caught in the sex act? Would she then
defend

herself by saying that the man had extorted her into that, by
threatening to

release the photos? Let us imagine a similar scenario in which a
man is caught by

police whilst trying to rob a bank. When the man is apprehended,
he says: “I was

forced into robbing the bank by another man who had a picture of
me having sex

with another woman, and I was fearful that this man would show it
to my wife.”

Would the police suddenly let the robber go? Surely the law does
not validate

such justifications, otherwise no crime could be punishable! Every
single person

would claim that he or she was coerced into it. The fact is that
the robber was

caught at the scene of the crime, just as Qatif woman placed
herself in a parked

car with another man in a dark and isolated spot.

salafimanhaj.com

16/19

Even if we believe her story about being extorted, the court
cannot simply waive

off her crime. If this were the case, then no single case of
adultery could ever be

brought to the courts, because every defendant would claim that “I
didn’t want to

do such-and-such sexual act with my lover, but he promised to
expose me to my

husband about our relationship, so I did it.” The truth is that if
the Qatif woman

had never done anything wrong with the lover in the first place,
then he could

never have extorted her; he was only able to extort her due to her
crime with

him. If this were not the case, how did she get herself into such
a compromising

and vulnerable position? If she had been a completely chaste
Muslim woman,

then she would have been completely loyal to her husband and would
have never

been involved with the other man at all. But instead she was
involved with that

man, and–according to her–that man was able to extort her based on
this illicit

relationship which she either was currently in or had in the past.
Either way, she

was in some sort of illegal affair punishable by the Shari’ah.

We have to remember that the Saudi judges are acting in accordance
to the law,

not their personal sentiments. If a crime was committed, then they
must punish it

according to the law.

Anonymous says

“ The woman was gang-raped…is this not enough of a punishment for
any crime

on her part?

”

Unfortunately, the law does not work in this manner. Let us
imagine the scenario

in which a black man is robbing a bank, and whilst he is doing
that, a racist white

Ku Klux Klan member catches him and roughs up the black man. In
this case,

would the law excuse the black man for robbery, on the basis that
he already got

what he deserved (or worse) from the white man? We find that this
is not the

case even in the United States of America; the black man would
still be punished

under the law for his crime of robbery. Meanwhile, the white man
would be

charged for assault and a hate crime. The two punishments would be
handed

down separately and independent of each other. One crime does not
cancel out

another crime. This would create a state of chaos, anarchy, and
vigilante justice.

In the Western countries, we find that if a woman murders a rapist
or a child

kidnapper, then that woman is still tried for murder. Yes, we all
sympathize with

that woman because we understand her emotions, but nonetheless,
the law

cannot excuse her for the crime of murder. If the law began to
excuse crimes

based on justifications, then this would open Pandora’s box. The
rule of law would

disappear and all criminals could claim that their crimes were
either justified by

the law or that they had already received due punishment in the
outside world.

Can we imagine a court excusing a man for robbery simply because
another

crime had been committed against the robber? Or perhaps because
the robber’s

son died in a car accident? Could not a lawyer argue that it is
not right to jail a

man for robbery when he already lost his son “which is punishment
enough”?

Surely this is a very dangerous and inappropriate line of
reasoning. Each crime

must be dealt with individually.

If a woman robs a bank and she is raped during the heist, would
the court

absolve her of the crime of robbery? The reality is that the
Westerners and the

hypocrites do not think of fornication as a crime like robbery,
and this is why they

are unable to see the parallel! But truly theft is a minor crime
compared to

adultery, and this is what the believers hold to be true. The
problem is that the

Westerners come from a nation of fornicators and adulterers, so
they in their

minds trivialize the crime of adultery. If a woman commits a
crime, then she will

salafimanhaj.com

17/19

be punished for that crime; if a crime is done to her, then the
men who did that

crime will be punished. But one crime does not cancel out the other,
nor do they

have any relation to each other. Each will be dealt with
separately and

independently.

This is not an emotional matter which the judges can simply change
because the

ruling does not sit well with the people. This is rather a matter
of Fiqh

(jurisprudence): two crimes were alleged, and each was judged
according to the

law. The woman was found guilty for her crime because of her
confession in

court, and the men were not found guilty because of lack of
evidence. (And we

remind the reader that nobody can claim sexism since the Qatif
woman’s

extramarital lover, a man, was also given the same sentence of
lashing!)

Anonymous says

“ You say that there was no evidence to convict the men with rape,
but they were

convicted of rape! Why else were they given jail-time!

”

The men were not found guilty of Zinnah, but rather some of them
had admitted

to witnessing Zinnah. Therefore, the men were found guilty of
engaging in

dubious activities, but it was difficult to secure a rape
conviction due to a lack of

evidence and contradictory statements made by the accuser. When
there is not

enough evidence to secure a Hadd punishment, then Ta’zeer
punishment can be

meted out based on the level of involvement in a crime.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the alleged rapists were given a sentence
of

ten years imprisonment which is the average sentence given to convicted rapists

in America and double what the average sentence is in many
European countries

such as England and Scotland! So why is it then that the Westerners
are

complaining that the alleged
rapists were not punished severely enough when

their convicted rapists routinely get less than that? Could it possibly be that
they

are dishonest in their intentions, and that they only seek to
attack Islam under

the guise of human rights? They claim to be human rights
activists, but the truth

is that they are crusaders who seek to destroy Islam.

Abeer Mishkhas of Arab News says

“ To add to all of the above, we know that the girl’s husband has
supported her

throughout her ordeal and this says volumes about who has the
right to be upset

about her meeting another man.

”

In the Islamic Law (as well as in the Judeo-Christian tradition),
there is no

condition that adultery is not to be punished simply because the
spouse forgives!

Therefore, the opinion of the husband cannot ward off the
punishment. To give

another example, we do not ward off the penalty for rape just
because the

woman forgives the rapist. When someone breaches a law, then the
state

punishes the individual, not the aggrieved party. As such, the
aggrieved party

cannot ward off the penalty either.

In the West, some married couples have what is called an “open
relationship”

whereby they allow their spouses to sleep around with multiple
partners. And yet,

such people are to be punished by the law despite the fact that
their acts have

been “forgiven” by their spouse. Surely Allah Almighty is the one
who forgives

such crimes, not any human being. Once the case has been
registered, then it

must go to trial and litigated to its end.

salafimanhaj.com

18/19

Anonymous says

“ She was not in khulwah when she was abducted, nor was she in
some isolated

place, but rather she was next to a public shopping mall where
there were many

people passing by…

”

This is a lie. If they were in a public place where “many people
[were] passing

by”, then how is it that she was abducted without people seeing
that? By

definition it must have been a secluded place, because she was
hiding from her

husband, nobody witnessed the incident, etc. In any case, there is
no need for

speculation because the Saudi ministry refuted this claim by
declaring that the

Qatif woman had been in a parked car “in a dark place where they
stayed for a

while”.

Conclusion

The Qatif case is a Fiqhi (jurisprudential) matter, and the judges
followed the

letter of the law and there is no blame on them. The manner in
which some

people are attacking the judges is completely inappropriate, and
it stems from

the media which has waged an ideological war against Islam. Unfortunately
many

Muslims have fallen into the trap and they have parroted the
accusations of the

enemies of Islam. Indeed, these Muslims should realize that they
are allying

themselves with a people who seek to diminish the Islamic Law. We
as Muslims

should hold firm and think the best of the judges who were
appointed to uphold

the Shari’ah.

The Westerners imply that whipping and stoning are barbaric
practices, yet we

find the same punishments mentioned in their own holy book (i.e.
the Bible)! And

they seek to decriminalize fornication and adultery, even though
their own holy

book says to kill the one who does such things. And this is
because they have a

disease in their hearts by which they disbelieve in God’s Laws
even though they

claim to be believers; and they come from a morally corrupt
society like the

people of Sodom which were destroyed by God. How could they uphold
God’s

Laws which are in their own Bible when ninety-five percent of them
have

committed either fornication or adultery sometime in their lives?
Is such a society

capable of passing moral judgments on us Muslims? We Muslims are
the moral

ones, who abstain from sexual crimes and uphold God’s Laws which
are even in

their own Christian books.

As for the woman accused of adultery and the men accused of rape,
then it

should be known that these are two separate issues that must be
dealt with

individually and independently. The woman confessed to the crime
of having an

illicit relationship and as such there is no question about her
guilt. Even if we

believe her story about retrieving a photograph, then this in
itself is evidence of a

crime: sending nude or semi-nude pictures is a crime in any
God-fearing country.

As for the alleged rape, then the woman failed to report the crime
except after

three months by which time all evidence had been lost. We have
shown how even

the Western authorities admit that it is nearly impossible to
prove rape after

seventy-two hours have passed. Therefore it is no surprise that
after three

months there was no evidence to convict the men with. The men
cannot be

hanged based on public sentiment alone. They cannot be hanged by
the media,

but rather they should be tried by the objective judiciary. The
media, run by

enemies of the Islamic Shari’ah/ Islamic law, cannot be trusted
with this case; the Western

public views this incident in a highly emotional manner without
knowing the facts,

and they wish to lynch the men (i.e. mob justice).

salafimanhaj.com

19/19

The woman may have been raped, and if she was, then we know that Allah

Almighty will punish the rapists in the next life. Allah Almighty
knows all and sees

all, and in the Court of the Lord each criminal will pay for his
sin. But in the court

of man, we can only judge men on the evidence which is apparent to
us, and we

cannot look inside the hearts like Allah. Therefore, if the men
did rape the

woman, then they have been given lenience only for a short time,
and then Allah

will deal with them. If, however, they were innocent, then Allah
knows that too.

We ask Allah to curse all rapists whoever and wherever they may
be, the known

and the hidden.

We close with these words:

Clearly, in many criminal events there are no clear-cut victims
and criminals,

quite often both sides are guilty. Saudi law clearly criminalises
unchaperoned

one-on-one contact, as a public safety measure, designed to
prevent the

occurrence of exactly this kind of situation. Saudi Arabia must be
congratulated

for their low crime rate. Scurrilous attacks on the judiciary such
as the one

committed by the alleged victim are deserving of punishment.

(Mike, Sacramento, USA; as posted on the BBC website)

The irony is that the Qatif case is being used to attack the
Islamic Law. And yet,

this incident only underscores the importance of the divinely
inspired Shari’ah / Islamic law.

Oftentimes the people ask why it is that Islam has such strict
laws against women

being alone in cars and secluded places with unrelated men. This
is exactly the

reason, so that such things do not happen. No woman deserves to be
raped, and

we do not say that any woman deserves it, nor is it a part of our
faith to claim

this. Yet, we say that women should remain vigilant and adhere to
the Islamic

Laws, refraining from dubious activities, and if they do this,
then it is much less

likely that they would ever place themselves in such a
compromising position.

Had the Qatif woman not engaged in sinful activities like sending
illicit pictures of

herself, and had she been one hundred percent loyal and honest to
her husband,

then she would never have been there on that day and none of this
would have

happened. And even if it had happened somehow, then she would not
have

feared going to the authorities and her rapists could have been
punished

severely. Instead, due to her betrayal, she placed herself in the jaws
of evil, and

she was unable to cry for help.

The entire Qatif incident is very unfortunate, and it is unclear
the level of guilt or

innocence of the woman and the alleged assailants. However, the
judges did the

best they could, given the scenario and the evidence presented to
them. Either

the involved Ulema will get one or two rewards for their Ijtihad.
We seek refuge

from those Taghoot /  Devils
who use this incident as a means to attack the sacred

Shar’iah / Islamic law , as well as those whose only aim is to
increase sectarian tension.

May Allah Almighty unite our hearts upon the path of Islam.

Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi.

You don't know anything about Muslims or Islam. Visit &
learn & invest some time before commenting,  https://islamqa.info/en
   &  
 www.salafimanhaj.com    &  
 www.islamagainstextremism.com    &  www.peacetv.tv   & http://www.salaf.com   if you
really want to know about ISLAM.